People v. Ogle

CourtNew York Court of Appeals
Citation104 N.Y. 511,11 N.E. 53
PartiesPEOPLE v. OGLE.
Decision Date01 March 1887

104 N.Y. 511
11 N.E. 53


Court of Appeals of New York.

March 1, 1887.

Appeal from judgment of general term of supreme court, First department, affirming conviction of the appellant for murder in the second degree.

[104 N.Y. 512]William F. Howe, for appellant.

104 N.Y. 513]McKenzie Semple, Asst. Dist. Atty., for respondent.

Several grounds are stated by the counsel for the prisoner for granting a new trial, but we think that not one is sufficient. It seems, on the contrary, to be quite a plain case for an affirmance of the judgment. But, as the prisoner has been convicted of murder in the second degree, and sentenced to imprisonment for life, we have not only given full attention to the arguments advanced by his counsel, but, in reference to the gravity of the case, we will briefly state the reasons for the result arrived at by us.

1. The first alleged error consists in permitting proof of the action of the officers in seeking for the prisoner after the crime was committed. It was offered and received upon the question of the flight of the prisoner. The court decided correctly in admitting the evidence. The crime was committed[104 N.Y. 514]on the thirtieth of November, 1882, and a brother of defendant was charged with its commission, and both were arrested that night. The prisoner was present at the examination of his brother, but was not called as a witness. The brother was subsequently indicted, but was finally discharged on his own recognizance, as there was no proof against him, and at that time none against the prisoner. Subsequently, in January, 1884, several persons were arrested and brought down before the district attorney, or some of his officers, and statements were made by some of them which led the authorities to desire the arrest of the prisoner. The evidence objected to was then permitted to be given by the district attorney, showing what the officer did in order to arrest the prisoner; that he went to his house for the purpose of looking for him, but did not find him there, and also to a saloon kept by one Ogle, (but not the prisoner, nor was it his home,) and did not find him, and also searched the neighborhood or vicinity without success, and also made inquiries, but

[11 N.E. 54

without finding him until September 6, 1886, when he was arrested in New York; and he then told the officer, as the officer swore, that he had been in Montana, Kansas City, and Montgomery, Alabama, and that, if the officer had not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • Com. v. Geagan
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • July 1, 1959
    ...recolor hair; and the efforts to locate Faherty by television and otherwise. State v. Lucey, 24 Mont. 295, 303, 61 P. 994; People v. Ogle, 104 N.Y. 511, 513-514, 11 N.E. 53; State v. Falcone, 41 R.I. 399, 400-401, 103 A. (b) Richardson assigns error that there were not admitted in evidence ......
  • People v. Howell
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • January 22, 1957
    ...when considered together with all the circumstances of the case there may arise a higher degree of guilt indication. People v. Ogle, 104 N.Y. 511, 11 N.E. 53; People v. Willett, 213 N.Y. 368, 386-387, 107 N.E. 707, 712; People v. Meehan, 256 App.Div. 268, 9 N.Y.S.2d True it is that the flig......
  • People v. Kress
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • December 31, 1940
    ...v. Everhardt, 104 N.Y. 591, 594,11 N.E. 62;People v. Taleisnik, 225 N.Y. 489, 493,122 N.E. 615; People v. Reddy, supra; People v. Ogle, 104 N.Y. 511, 515,11 N.E. 53;People v. O'Farrell, 175 N.Y. 323, 67 N.E. 588. It may not depend for its weight and probative value upon the testimony of the......
  • People v. Caprio
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • March 14, 1966
    ...innocence might be drawn, nevertheless there is no requirement that corroborative evidence must be consistent with guilt (People v. Ogle, 104 N.Y. 511, 515, 11 N.E. 53; People v. Bloodgood, 251 App.Div. 593, 298 N.Y.S. 91; People v. McPorland, 191 App.Div. 795, 182 N.Y.S. 117; People v. Swe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT